When a dispute over image copyright crosses borders (e.g., a company in Spain/the EU and the other in the U.S. or China), three things change: where you can sue, which law applies, and how to obtain a fast takedown. This guide compares the Spain/EU framework with non-EU jurisdictions, focusing on online uses.

1) Where can you sue?

• Defendant in the EU (e.g., Spain). Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) applies. General rule: courts of the defendant’s domicile, plus special fora (e.g., place of the harmful event). For online infringements, CJEU case law allows suing in countries where the content is accessible, but the court’s jurisdiction over damages is limited to that territory (“mosaic”).

• Defendant outside the EU (U.S., China). Brussels I Recast does not generally apply. You rely on the international jurisdiction rules of the EU Member State hearing the case (unless there’s a forum-selection clause). The “mosaic” idea can inspire the analysis, but the legal basis will be the national rules of the European court seized.

2) Which law applies to the copyright infringement?

• EU rule (Rome II). For IP infringement, the applicable law is the law of the country for which protection is claimed (lex loci protectionis). If you claim protection in several countries, a mosaic effect may result (several laws applied to different parts of the claim).

• Contracts/licences. A choice-of-law clause (e.g., in stock-image T&Cs) governs the contract, but does not displace lex loci protectionis for the non-contractual infringement claim.

3) Fast takedown routes depending on where the provider sits

• Provider/platform in the EU. The Digital Services Act (DSA) requires effective notice-and-action channels for hosting services (Art. 16). Useful to remove content without litigation when the service operates in the EU.

• Provider/platform in the U.S. DMCA §512 safe harbors: notice, removal, and possible counter-notice. The standard tool to remove content hosted in the U.S.

• Provider/platform in China. Notice-and-takedown mechanisms under the Copyright Law (2020/2021) and the Regulation on the Right of Communication through Information Networks (2006, as amended in 2013). In practice, administrative/portal routes are often the first move.

⚠️ The real challenge is quickly identifying if an image is high-risk (because it’s on paid stock platforms). Running a scan with Image Copyright Checker can save you weeks of correspondence and legal threats.

4) Particularities if the case is in the U.S.

• Registration required to sue. After Fourth Estate (2019), you need a granted registration (not just a filing) to bring a copyright suit.

• Statutory damages & attorneys’ fees (§412). Available only if the work was timely registered (before infringement or within three months after publication). Otherwise you are limited to actual damages and proof of the infringer’s profits.

• Platform safe harbors (§512). Limit intermediary liability if they act diligently; hence a DMCA takedown is usually the first step against hosts/services.

5) Particularities if the case is in China

• Takedown & evidence. Network-communication rules and administrative practice facilitate removal where title/authority is shown. Useful to stop ongoing harm while considering a civil claim in IP courts.

• Recognition/enforcement. Recognition of foreign judgments depends on treaties/reciprocity. Practically, many strategies start with platform/host actions and settlements rather than a full court battle.

6) Remedies and amounts: convergences and differences

• EU/Spain. The rightholder may seek injunction (cessation) and damages. Under Art. 140 LPI (Spanish IP Act), damages may be calculated as hypothetical licence fee or economic consequences (loss + infringer’s profit), plus investigation costs and moral damage. In out-of-court practice, demands often resemble a retroactive licence (with or without a surcharge).

• U.S. If timely registered, the claimant may seek statutory damages and attorneys’ fees; otherwise, litigation focuses on actual damages and profits, which raises evidentiary cost.

• China. Civil remedies (cessation/damages), with administrative routes also available; early removal reduces practical exposure.

7) Enforcement of foreign judgments

• EU → U.S. No federal treaty for automatic recognition; courts apply comity and state statutes. Assess attachable assets in the U.S. before litigating.

• EU → China. Recognition subject to reciprocity/treaties; weigh assets and alternatives (takedown, settlement).

8) Practical action matrix

9) Comparative checklist (EU vs. non-EU)

1. Viable forum. Is the defendant in the EU? If not, rely on the Member State’s national rules on international jurisdiction.

2. Applicable law. Rome II Art. 8 → lex loci protectionis (possible multi-country mosaic).

3. Takedown keyed to where the host operates: DSA (EU), DMCA (U.S.), Chinese notice-and-takedown.

4. Evidence. Screenshots, URLs, hashes, timestamps, and licence/T&C records.

5. Cost/benefit. Likely recoverable damages vs. cross-border enforcement.

6. Hybrid strategy. Combine fast removal + retroactive licence/settlement where international enforcement is uncertain.

Conclusion

In Spain/EU ↔ non-EU image disputes, success turns on (i) picking a workable forum, (ii) applying the right law (lex loci protectionis), and (iii) using takedown mechanisms (DSA/DMCA/China) to stop the harm while you negotiate or litigate. Often, a documented out-of-court solution (removal + retroactive licence with waiver) is more effective—and cheaper—than a lawsuit that’s hard to enforce outside the EU.

💡 That’s why we insist: don’t wait until you receive a claim letter. Run a check today with the checker or install the plugin and enjoy continuous legal peace of mind for your website.